Word of Wisdom and marijuana. Very serious.


TStevieRob
 Share

Recommended Posts

It depends on the circumstances.  If there is a threat of imminent serious bodily injury or death, then you are wrong in the above assertion.

 

Most states laws will read similar to Utah:  http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE76/htm/76_02_040200.htm.  If you read it, you will see what is legally required.  There is a line between justified and unjustified and those who think they are willing to engage in self defense actions better know the difference.

 

Murder is not the same as killing.

 

Anyone who believes they are willing to use deadly force should familiarize themselves with the deadly force laws of their state.

 

If you don't think you could take action with deadly force, then this is all a moot point.

 

Hopefully it is a moot point period.

 

 

Okay, I think we have a misunderstanding... I'm not talking about what's legal.  I'm talking about what violates the 6th of the 10 commandments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I think we have a misunderstanding... I'm not talking about what's legal.  I'm talking about what violates the 6th of the 10 commandments.

 

There is still a distinct difference between murder and killing. And protecting one's family is mandated by God. I am not going to suggest when the line is crossed that allows a killing to not be murder, but I think it fairly safe to say that there is a line that extends beyond self -- a line crossed which is, perhaps, more justifiable, morally speaking, than self-defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is still a distinct difference between murder and killing. And protecting one's family is mandated by God. I am not going to suggest when the line is crossed that allows a killing to not be murder, but I think it fairly safe to say that there is a line that extends beyond self -- a line crossed which is, perhaps, more justifiable, morally speaking, than self-defense.

 

Yes, and in this scenario (from Catholic school, which should be the same with LDS on the matter), what is in your heart is what makes the difference between killing and murder.  If what is in your heart is love for the child, then you are protecting the innocent with killing as the consequence.  If what is in your heart is hate for the transgressor, then you are killing the transgressor with protecting as the consequence which is a sin against the 6th commandment.

 

This is easy to sift through if we are just talking about it because, of course, my love for my child consumes me... but, if we ever get put into that position, I can imagine myself having that 2nd feeling overcome the first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and in this scenario (from Catholic school, which should be the same with LDS on the matter), what is in your heart is what makes the difference between killing and murder.  If what is in your heart is love for the child, then you are protecting the innocent with killing as the consequence.  If what is in your heart is hate for the transgressor, then you are killing the transgressor with protecting as the consequence which is a sin against the 6th commandment.

 

This is easy to sift through if we are just talking about it because, of course, my love for my child consumes me... but, if we ever get put into that position, I can imagine myself having that 2nd feeling overcome the first.

 

Which brings up an interesting concept that I have been thinking about lately. How does one kill without also having negative emotions attend? Do we really envision the sons of Helaman chopping off Lamanite heads with no attending fury as they are in the midst of the heated battle? I think not. I would, rather, contend, that anger, just as killing, can be justifiable.

 

Now, lest you think I am contemplating killing someone, let me apply the thought:

 

In the latest CES fireside Elder Ballard pointed out how we are every bit as much at war in our day, but it is not a war with swords, but with truths. So I apply my question thusly:  With the analogy of war and battle, does the attending idea of fury also cross over in the analogy, and if so, how? Certainly we know that we are meant to discuss things civilly. But sometimes it seems that the efforts to be kind lead to the righteous postilion being trampled upon. In fact, in my mind, there is a conflict of ideas herein. On one hand, turn the other cheek. On the other, defend your families, your liberties, your rights of worship, and you homes, even with your lives if necessary.  Application of the two ideas can be difficult, particularly when the situation is not as physically extreme (death and dismemberment). But reasonably, we must accept that the situation(s) may be just as extreme for the souls (apostasy and sin).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which brings up an interesting concept that I have been thinking about lately. How does one kill without also having negative emotions attend? Do we really envision the sons of Helaman chopping off Lamanite heads with no attending fury as they are in the midst of the heated battle? I think not. I would, rather, contend, that anger, just as killing, can be justifiable.

 

Now, lest you think I am contemplating killing someone, let me apply the thought:

 

In the latest CES fireside Elder Ballard pointed out how we are every bit as much at war in our day, but it is not a war with swords, but with truths. So I apply my question thusly:  With the analogy of war and battle, does the attending idea of fury also cross over in the analogy, and if so, how? Certainly we know that we are meant to discuss things civilly. But sometimes it seems that the efforts to be kind lead to the righteous postilion being trampled upon. In fact, in my mind, there is a conflict of ideas herein. On one hand, turn the other cheek. On the other, defend your families, your liberties, your rights of worship, and you homes, even with your lives if necessary.  Application of the two ideas can be difficult, particularly when the situation is not as physically extreme (death and dismemberment). But reasonably, we must accept that the situation(s) may be just as extreme for the souls (apostasy and sin).

 

I think that is what 2 Nephi 2 tells us of the Plan of Salvation - yes, when at war, we feel fury as I think it is necessarily for battle.  Now, there's a fine line between fury and hate.  Just as Jesus showed when he admonished the sellers at the temple.  One can be angry without hate.  It is a paradox to think one can kill with love as killing is more closely related to hate.  But that's what we are asked to do.  That the killing is merely a consequence of the Love we have for our Neighbor and not the Hate we feel for the Transgressor.

.

If we walk this back to more everyday things... this can relate to say, disciplining a child.  A child does something really terrible that hurt the parent.  As a consequence, the child is punished.  But, meting out this punishment has to be out of Love and completely devoid of Hate.  A parent may express anger - but love still needs to dominate.

 

Yeah, I'm fuzzy on Anger/Fury/Hate.  When I get angry I'm a devil.  So, I don't know how easy it can be to be angry and mete out punishment while love burns in your heart for the transgressor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm missing the point on Commandment 10 here.

 

 

The 6th Commandment is correctly translated as "murder" not "kill." 

 

Your comparison to anger is puzzling in this context.  If someone's life (child in this example) is in danger, it really does not matter if I am angry or not, as to whether or not there is justification in my actions.  I am protecting life, angry or not, which is the justification.  Disciplining is a whole different animal.  Nowhere does it say that self defense/defense is allowable only if we are not feeling anger/hate.

 

Now if I harm someone soley because of hate/anger we have a whole different scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm missing the point on Commandment 10 here.

 

 

The 6th Commandment is correctly translated as "murder" not "kill." 

 

Your comparison to anger is puzzling in this context.  If someone's life (child in this example) is in danger, it really does not matter if I am angry or not, as to whether or not there is justification in my actions.  I am protecting life, angry or not, which is the justification.  Disciplining is a whole different animal.  Nowhere does it say that self defense/defense is allowable only if we are not feeling anger/hate.

 

Now if I harm someone soley because of hate/anger we have a whole different scenario.

 

The bolded is stated clearly in the 2nd of the Greatest Commandments - Love Others as you Love Yourself.  Others = everybody, including the guy who has your son.  My conversation with Folk Prophet is trying to determine where killing ends and murdering begins.

 

I apologize if I reference the Catechism of the Catholic Church in trying to explain this.  The Catechism explains it very well.  I believe LDS and Catholics hold the same stance on this one.

 

So, from Catechism:

2258

"Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."

 

2262

In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill," and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.

 

2263

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."

 

So, putting this in another scenario that has a more pronounced difference between "what is intended and what is not" - that of a murderer sitting in an electric chair (or lethal injection chair) waiting for the switch while the families of the people he murdered sit in the front row.  This is a common occurrence in society today.  The families of the people can be guilty of going against the 6th commandment if they are sitting in that front row out of vengeance and hate for what has been done to their family.  But, they are not guilty of going against the 6th commandment if they are sitting in that front row out of duty to protect others from getting killed by that murderer.

 

Yes, the families can feel both hatred and duty.  They are under obligation to conquer hatred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best person to talk to concerning this would be the Lord and a priesthood leader. If prescribed (out of need)* by a doctor I would not personally consider marijuana to be a Word of Wisdom violation. That said there is the issue that while your state may consider it legal federal law still considers it a controlled substance so there is more than just the Word of Wisdom considerations. * Hydrocodone can be prescribed for legitimate medical reasons, if you're hitting your doctor up to get high off it though you are violating the Word of Wisdom in my view.

^^^ sums it up for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

 

Your emotional state of mind determines whether your actions are justified?

 

I cannot speak for anatess, but in my opinion the answer is yes and no. No, it does not define murder vs. killing. Yes, it does matter at another level, but the sin is it's own and does not relate to the killing itself. In other words, if you kill someone justifiably but do so with hatred in your heart, you need to repent of the hatred, but not of the killing, as it was justified. If you kill someone unjustly, it doesn't matter if you loved them right through to the end. It's still unjustified and you stand accountable.

 

I don't think intent has anything to do with defining when a killing becomes murder*. I suppose it could if you were looking for an excuse to murder and then happened to have a justifiable moment to kill that person. I expect God would still hold that person accountable for murder...so in that regard I agree with anatess.

 

Edit: * I should clarify that I mean in the eyes of God, or morally speaking. The law defines murder and justifiably killing on it's own terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I understand you correctly.

 

Your emotional state of mind determines whether your actions are justified?

TFP summed it up quite nicely above... Just as a clarification, it is not your emotional state of mind that separates sin from not sin... It is the desire in one's heart... Which, only God can discern the truth of... Hence, laws of the land can't really wrap legal conditions around it to determine justifiable or not that can align solidly with God's laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please have an open mind when reading this, but please be honest. I am a 23 year old war veteran. I served for four and a half years as an infantrymen in the Army, including a year in the Kunar Province of Afghanistan, a pure hell hole. My job was straight forward- hunting the enemy everyday. I have been shot at, rocketed, bombarbed by artillery. I have personally seen 3 of my best friends die before my eyes, and to be honest, yes, done some killing of my own. I have some PTSD issues, albeit not crazy in my opinion. I manage to get on with everyday life after reading experiences from some older veterans who said life from that point on is about putting on one pant leg at a time, and getting on it with it. The only area greatly bothering me is my sleep. I have nightmares every night of some messed up stuff. Blood, explosions, bodies, etc. I often wake up in a cold sweat, my friends have said I talk, sometimes yell in my sleep, and sometimes I even wake myself up from jerking around. This causes me to be grumpy, exhausted, and depressed a lot. Now, how this comes to the word of wisdom. I have tried every avenue of help avaiable to me. Medical care is provided to me by the Veterans Administration. Through them I have access to help groups and sessions with a therapist free of charge. I have been on quite a few different medications, none much help and some with terrible side effects. Yes, I pray. Yes, I read scripture. I exercise and eat pretty healthy. Finally, some friends recommended marijuana to help me sleep and relax. After contemplation, I tried it, and it helped. It calms me down, helps me get to sleep and stay asleep. I generally feel better. I dont abuse it, just use it as needed. My state has a medical marijuana law that I qualify for so I am not worried about that. I dont sell it, nor do I go around advertising it. Researching it, it has virtually no adverse health effects. It really has no links to negative health conditions. Obviously, I am timid about bringing this up to people I know for obvious reasons. That is why I am posting it here. I honestly dont know how this would qualify as far WoW. Thoughts?

D&C 89:10 . . .all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 It is the desire in one's heart

 

 

Ok.  So some turd is holding a child hostage, threatening to commit unspeakable acts and then kill the child, all while holding a knife to the child's throat.  For whatever reason I feel hate for the turd.  The turd takes a step that makes it legally justifiable to shoot, I take the shot and kill the turd, but there is hatred in my heart.  What exactly am I guilty of?  Not loving my neighbor?  Something else?  I certainly don't think guilty of murder.

 

Trying to understand your viewpoint, not argue here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.  So some turd is holding a child hostage, threatening to commit unspeakable acts and then kill the child, all while holding a knife to the child's throat.  For whatever reason I feel hate for the turd.  The turd takes a step that makes it legally justifiable to shoot, I take the shot and kill the turd, but there is hatred in my heart.  What exactly am I guilty of?  Not loving my neighbor?  Something else?  I certainly don't think guilty of murder.

 

Trying to understand your viewpoint, not argue here.

 

No argument.  Just trying to discuss complex gospel principles... sometimes I wish Gospel Doctrine class is like this.

 

Hate in your heart is your guilt... which means, you didn't love your neighbor.  The great commandment to love your neighbor as yourself does not have conditions.  It doesn't say, love your neighbor as yourself unless he's a turd, then you don't have to.  Your neighbor is everybody - including the turd.  So taking the shot with hate in your heart is akin to Cain taking Abel's life.

 

So, if we were perfect disciples of Christ, what we should have done in that scenario is... the turd is holding a knife to a child's throat... love for the child requires us to do our best to save the child.  Hate for the turd creeps into our hearts so we remind ourselves that he is a child of God (we probably should first stop calling him a turd) and is worthy of Christ's atoning sacrifice... but the child is going to die in about 1.5 seconds...  so we pray that God have mercy on his soul and take the shot.

 

And this is why I say... I know this is my covenant.  I don't know if I can do this for real...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My definition of wholesome herb is one that is used for health, either nutritional or medicinal.  Not recreational.

 

Well that defines wholesome accurately (conducive to or suggestive of good health and physical well-being) but it doesn't necessarily dictate which herbs are, actually, wholesome.

 

How do we classify a specific herb as "wholesome"? Just on a leftist doctor's say so?

 

It's complicated with marijuana. There is a long tradition of abuse, recreational use, and illegality that makes it distinctly difficult to view it in a wholesome light. But are those traditions mere bias? I suppose that is the question. For myself, I'm skeptical that there is any wholesome use to it. But I'm moderately (and by moderately, I mean extremely ;) ) uneducated on the matter. So....

 

The point remains. I suppose if there came a point where marijuana was commonly prescribed, legal throughout, etc., that we could certainly accept that it is truly wholesome. As it is, I'm not so sure.

 

Certainly, simply claiming wholesome use is insufficient to your D&C submission, however. Someone claiming they are using an herb wholesomely (for the purposes of health) does not make that usage wholesome.

 

It's very interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that defines wholesome accurately (conducive to or suggestive of good health and physical well-being) but it doesn't necessarily dictate which herbs are, actually, wholesome.

 

How do we classify a specific herb as "wholesome"? Just on a leftist doctor's say so?

 

It's complicated with marijuana. There is a long tradition of abuse, recreational use, and illegality that makes it distinctly difficult to view it in a wholesome light. But are those traditions mere bias? I suppose that is the question. For myself, I'm skeptical that there is any wholesome use to it. But I'm moderately (and by moderately, I mean extremely ;) ) uneducated on the matter. So....

 

The point remains. I suppose if there came a point where marijuana was commonly prescribed, legal throughout, etc., that we could certainly accept that it is truly wholesome. As it is, I'm not so sure.

 

Certainly, simply claiming wholesome use is insufficient to your D&C submission, however. Someone claiming they are using an herb wholesomely (for the purposes of health) does not make that usage wholesome.

 

It's very interesting.

I don't agree that it's "complicated".  A person using marijuana for recreational purposes and saying otherwise knows in their heart what their doing.... and so does Heavenly Father.  The rest of us shouldn't judge and yet we do need to protect ourselves from those who are abusing the drug.  Marijuana is not the only herb we get medicine from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that defines wholesome accurately (conducive to or suggestive of good health and physical well-being) but it doesn't necessarily dictate which herbs are, actually, wholesome.

 

How do we classify a specific herb as "wholesome"? Just on a leftist doctor's say so?

 

It's complicated with marijuana. There is a long tradition of abuse, recreational use, and illegality that makes it distinctly difficult to view it in a wholesome light. But are those traditions mere bias? I suppose that is the question. For myself, I'm skeptical that there is any wholesome use to it. But I'm moderately (and by moderately, I mean extremely ;) ) uneducated on the matter. So....

 

The point remains. I suppose if there came a point where marijuana was commonly prescribed, legal throughout, etc., that we could certainly accept that it is truly wholesome. As it is, I'm not so sure.

 

Certainly, simply claiming wholesome use is insufficient to your D&C submission, however. Someone claiming they are using an herb wholesomely (for the purposes of health) does not make that usage wholesome.

 

It's very interesting.

 

... so you think it should be used prudently then?

 

D&C 89:11 ...all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving

 

Or, if you prefer, (Church Handbook of Instruction 2:21.3.11)

 

Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree that it's "complicated".  A person using marijuana for recreational purposes and saying otherwise knows in their heart what their doing.... and so does Heavenly Father.  The rest of us shouldn't judge and yet we do need to protect ourselves from those who are abusing the drug.  Marijuana is not the only herb we get medicine from.

 

Of course it's complicated. "All wholesome herbs" means that the herbs, themselves, needs be wholesome, not that we think they're wholesome, or that we're making efforts to use them wholesomely. It has nothing to do with judging others. It has to do with the complications of determining if an herb is, indeed, wholesome or not.

 

Point being, as I read your initial post with the D&C quote, you seemed to be implying that this verse justifies the use of marijuana if it's being used for an intended wholesome purpose. I disagree. One could, for example, intend to consume deadly nightshade (Atropa belladonna) for wholesome purposes all they wanted, and it would still kill them. The herb sets the wholesome level, not the intention.

 

Sure, one might not be held accountable for their unknowledgeable action (I say "might" because I wonder at accountability when it comes down to nothing more than stupidity stemming from laziness), but they'll still be just as dead, and the herb's usage certainly isn't justified by the Word of Wisdom because the person's intent was wholesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... so you think it should be used prudently then?

 

I do not. I'm not sure where you got that from what I said, but whatever I said that implied it, I did not mean to.

 

 

Or, if you prefer, (Church Handbook of Instruction 2:21.3.11)

 

Quote

Members should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs. Nor should members use harmful or habit-forming substances except under the care of a competent physician.

 

Marijuana is sort of in a unique place right now though. First, it is illegal at some level. Second, are "competent" physician's really the one's prescribing it? (I have no idea. As indicated before, I'm woefully uneducated when it comes to marijuana). And third, even if most competent physicians were commonly prescribing it, I'm not sure I'd trust that due to political forces, the general corruption of society, and the historical reasons (perhaps bias) I mentioned before.

 

That being said, and to be clear, I have no strong opinion as to a member using it if prescribed by a doctor, as to right/wrong. If pushed I would lean towards wrong...but that may be the bias, and I'm not sure I could back it up even logically -- except for, of course, the err on the side of caution type logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. So some turd is holding a child hostage, threatening to commit unspeakable acts and then kill the child, all while holding a knife to the child's throat. For whatever reason I feel hate for the turd. The turd takes a step that makes it legally justifiable to shoot, I take the shot and kill the turd, but there is hatred in my heart. What exactly am I guilty of? Not loving my neighbor? Something else? I certainly don't think guilty of murder.

Trying to understand your viewpoint, not argue here.

For me...

Clean kill (or the attempt to do so) = showing all the respect & love for my neighbor as myself AND protecting the innocent.

(If I have a child at knife point, please, bullseye = spinal column. Take the shot. Period.)

However... The murder via anger would apply

- if I shot through the child (on purpose) because I cared more about killing the man than saving the child

- if instead of a clean kill, when in have the power to do so, I spend the next few months torturing them for kicks.

They're still dead, all 3 ways, but in 2:3 I destroy my own soul in the process.

Even when 2&3 are accidents (innocent gets hurt, or we screw it up and someone takes a long time to die, hours not months, but still instead of quick and clean) people get TORN UP, ya know? Especially with hurting an innocent, but even if it's an evil SOB, most people can't take joy or shrug off their suffering. Guilt eats them.

It doesn't mean you can't be angry when you kill them.

It means your anger is in check.

You park your truck and give chase through the crowd, instead of plowing through the crowd in your truck.

You ground your kid instead of beating them.

You kill cleanly, in justifiable circumstance.

Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

... so you think it should be used prudently then?

 

I do not. I'm not sure where you got that from what I said, but whatever I said that implied it, I did not mean to.

 

This sounds like the very definition of prudence:

 

The point remains. I suppose if there came a point where marijuana was commonly prescribed, legal throughout, etc., that we could certainly accept that it is truly wholesome. 

 

I'll admit that I read into "commonly prescribed, legal throughout" to suggest competent medical professionals were the ones prescribing, and implicit in the use is a lack of abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sounds like the very definition of prudence:

 

Right. Well, my prudence and the prudent use of marijuana are not the same. I do not suggest cautious and prudent use of marijuana at this time in history. I suggest avoiding it like the plague. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question/comments though.

 

I'll admit that I read into "commonly prescribed, legal throughout" to suggest competent medical professionals were the ones prescribing, and implicit in the use is a lack of abuse.

 

I see. Yes, I did qualify a future possibility of prudent use thereby.

 

That being said, as for me, I will consider it a valid treatment when and if the church puts out some sort of statement clarifying that it is acceptable to use as such. Until that time, I'm probably going to remain on the "avoid like the plague" fence somewhat. I can imagine scenarios that would change my mind without a specific church statement. (Like a new disease that is specifically cured only by marijuana or something - I mean, common sense is common sense, right?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share